Firstly, I wish to thank you for replying to my open letter and
creating space for a public debate. This is a sign of a truly healthy
democracy and is rare for a politician in this day and age. I truly
appreciate that a big politician chooses to reply to a humble
columnist: doesn't happen too often in an age where the media is a soft
target. However, while I do not wish this to become a tu to main main, I
must reserve the right to reply.

Sir, there are four basic
issues that I raised in my original letter to which you have responded.
Firstly, the meat and beef ban in Maharashtra. On the beef ban, the fact
is that your government has imposed a statewide ban in a unilateral
manner with no attempt to engage with the stakeholders. The results are
there for all to see. Thousands of people associated with the cattle
trade have overnight been rendered unemployed. They are all citizens of
this country, many of whom voted for you in the last election. I haven't
heard a word of empathy for their plight ( a number of them belong to
the minority community but let's not go down there for now). Should I
not ask as a journalist what useful public purpose has been served by
this ban? Or does asking questions make me agenda driven?

The
issue of a meat ban has a more chequered past. Yes, previous governments
of the Congress-NCP, be it at the state or municipal level, have sought
to impose bans on meat sale during the Jain festival. Under pressure
from the Jain community, attempts have been made by your predecessors
(and I mention this in my article without citing the dates) in 1994,
2003-04 and 2014 through government resolutions, but these were never
widely enforced (the 94 order, for example, was never carried out), were
often driven by a spirit of voluntarism (an ‘’appeal” was made to close
meat shops) and nor did they initially last beyond two days (although
the August 2014 Government resolution did seek to extend it to four
days). It is only this year that the BJP dominated Mira-Bhayandar
municipal corporation imposed an unprecedented eight day ban on meat
sale and strictly enforced it. Taking a cue, a group of BJP MLAs,
councillors and Jain community persons met the municipal commissioner
and sought to extend this to Mumbai city and have a similar eight day
ban on meat sale across the city. It is only when the Shiv Sena and MNS
opposed this, that your local leaders were forced to back off because
they couldn't muster a majority.

The message is clear and this
was the point I was making: the state BJP wanted to impose, indeed was
pushing to impose, a ban much wider in scope and ambit than in the past
And if I ask questions in this regard, am I agenda-driven or
pseudo-secular or simply reflecting the concerns of a large section of
the population who do not appreciate the ban culture, be it by a BJP
government or a Congress government?

Lets turn to Rakesh Maria
and the musical chairs played with the police commissioner's office. You
claim that his sudden transfer was necessitated by the rush of
festivals: a new man was needed to oversee the festival arrangements.
Truth is, almost no senior police officer I have spoken to is willing to
buy this theory. Those who have retired have openly scoffed at this
explanation, those in service are naturally hesitant to speak out. The
conjecture is that Mr Maria's transfer has something to do with the
ongoing Sheena Bora investigation or a personal animus. You seem to
suggest that his role as commissioner in a murder case was purely
supervisory. Maybe it was, or should be. But the fact is, your
government after transferring him to DG Home Guards in the morning, the
very same evening claims that he will continue to oversee the Bora
investigation. This, even as a new police commissioner and another fine
officer Ahmed Javed takes charge. Can there be anything more confusing?
Then, to compound the confusion, your government now decides to
suddenly hand over the Bora case to the CBI. The Mumbai police claimed
in court that it had clinching evidence while seeking remand against the
accused; then why is the case being transferred out? Is the Mumbai
police incompetent, is there a cover-up, or is the case throwing up new
dimensions which perhaps might need fresh investigation? Is a journalist
not to ask such questions without his motives being questioned?

Let's turn to the issue of sedition and a government circular. You claim
that the circular is a routine translation from Marathi of an order
passed by the previous state government. Your reply seems to suggest
that the role of the present government is little more than clerical
that requires no application of mind to a serious issue. Well, all I can
say is that on Tuesday, the Mumbai high court gave a very different
spin to this issue: on a petition by cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, they have
asked your government not to implement the circular for now and asked
you to reply by the 20th of October. Since the matter is now before the
esteemed court, maybe we should wait to see how they interpret the
government circular: clearly, this round has been won by those who are
worried that the circular can be misused by the police. Also, if you are
not in agreement with the sedition circular why did your government not
withdraw it? `Sedition’ is hardly a weapon to be used in the armoury of
a democratic government which should welcome debate and disagreement.
Why did your government re-issue this circular? And if I point to this
potential for misuse, am I being agenda driven or simply doing my duty
as a journalist?

The fourth issue is one which is dear to your
and my heart: the plight of the farmers, especially in Marathwada at the
moment. As a politician from Vidarbha, I know you empathise with
farmers issues; I am aware that you took a lead role in exposing the
irrigation scam when in opposition. And I am also aware of your efforts
through the Jal Yukta Shivir Yojana to try and improve the situation on
the ground. The facts though are that 729 farmers have committed suicide
since January in Marathwada alone, more than any other part of the
country, and tanker mafias and usurious money-lenders continue to rule.
Yes, this is an inherited legacy (and I refer to the irrigation failures
and comments made by previous ministers in my original letter), but on
the ground there is hardly any evidence of the situation showing any
marked improvement. Maybe, if your micro-irrigation schemes do work,
then in the long run, there will be change. But for now, there is a
deepening crisis. Should I not be asking you, therefore, to prioritise
farm relief above all else? And should I not also ask what happened to
the election promise of ensuring that those involved in the irrigation
scam are punished? Or is asking hard questions in this age of
cheerleaders and unbridled Bhakti, no longer acceptable? My final
point sir: in your response, at various points you call me a 'leftist',
`pseudo secular’, and ‘biased’. You also rather derisively placed the
word senior, as in senior journalist, in inverted commas. Personal
attacks are now par for the course; 27 years of journalism have helped
me acquire the skin of a rhinoceros. Over the years, I have been
attacked by one and all: in 1992-93, Sharad Pawar, also a former
Maharashtra CM, threw me out of a press conference because of the
questions I asked on the Mumbai riots. Ten years later, my coverage of
the 2002 riots led to my being attacked again. I have stood up against
all forms of extremism, Hindu and Muslim, and am suspicious of all
dogmas, be it of left or right. I have exposed Congress corruption (as
editor of a news channel, I supervised the path-breaking investigative
story on the Quattorochi accounts being defrozen), and sangh parivar
hate politics, Mulayam’s goondaism (for which I was summoned to the UP
state assembly) and Mayawati’s disproportionate assets (for which our OB
van was burnt). Please do go through my columns over the last two
decades, especially on Maharashtra politics, a state whose social and
political decline I have observed with dismay.

I am happy to
introspect, be corrected, but dislike being pigeonholed in any manner,
except to say that I do believe in the spirit of a liberal, plural India
that strives to provide equal opportunities to all its citizens. Does
that make me a “Leftist?” as you appear to caricature all dissenters or
questioners? If I question any form of bigotry, does that make me
pseudo-secular? In my view, it makes me a proud, humane Indian.

Post-script: I must also thank all your followers who ensured I trended
all through Tuesday on twitter. Their constant abuse gives me strength.
Look forward to meeting soon! Jai Maharashtra, jai Hind!